Hey Blue! Most exciting recent news is that I was accepted into SUNY Binghamton's PhD program in philosophy, with funding. I got into Northeastern and L&C (even with my wretched LSAT) but decided I'd rather continue with phil. right now. So I'm happy about that. Still waiting to hear back from other programs, but SUNY was one of my top 3, so I feel good about that.

So I was reading the NYT Book Review, and became very grumpy. Review in question was for a novel about alcoholism, and at one point the reviewer states that there are some graphic moments, and that women may have trouble reading it; then asks "If Jane Austen can be considered chick lit, where is the word for this very male writing?" I had to put the paper down, I was so taken aback. For two reasons--one, the assumption that women are so "sensitive" they may have trouble reading difficult passages, where a man would not, subscribes to the stereotypical diminution of women. Second, these so-called "difficult" passages are scenes of "ugly prostitutes" getting taken every which way on the floor of the bar, etc. Jane Austen is "chick lit" because she focuses on the lives of women. Why is it that these "very male" writers almost invariably portray women in degraded ways? Is misogyny a "very male" thing to be? This is just as insulting to men as to women.

On LucasHumble's LSN: "I have deleted a lot of stuff on here because, as the application process really gets kicked into high gear, I don't want to throw too much information out there (as if I haven't done that already). Still, I do want my page to be helpful to others; I believe that is the whole point of this website. As I get correspondence back, I will update this page accordingly."

He doesn't want to throw too much information out there? His LSN name is "LucasHumble", his name in real life is "Lucas Humble". What sort of anonymity is he protecting by deleting his involvement in junior varsity fencing?